it's been an interesting debate/discussion over the last five or whatever years as blogs began and have become somewhat part of the journalistic community. and, the established media has begun to blog, some of them very well. others, not so well.
locally, the bee does a pretty decent job of blogging with the beehive, the sportsbuzz is hit or miss, and i'll be honest, i don't read the opinion blog. cbs47 also does some blogging, and in my opinion, is on the other end of the scale. they all don't blog frequently and so really, mike scott is sort of what i consider the channel 47 blog.
here's where i get to it: when journalists blog, are they creating news, and is that good? i'm not saying that journalists shouldn't blog, but it is clear that they differentiate between their blogs for their journalism. mike oz has even told me that, although not exactly in those words. if i can remember it correctly, mike told me a while back that his blogging tends to be more his personal feelings, thoughts, things that took his interest, whereas his articles & columns were more straight journalism. the paper is held to a much higher standard, i think, than the blog. that's not to say that mike doesn't do his homework on his blogging because he clearly does.
so we turn to mike scott's blog. today in a post over at fresno famous i called mike scott's blog visual vomit and blogging diarrhea. scott references his blog on air frequently, and today during the noon news he brought up the "controversy" (his word) over on his blog between roller derby and the city. it seems that scott is using the blog to leak information, and the info is somewhat speculative and questionable. is it even a real story? if it is, why not do the leg work and present it as such?
am i out there on this, or scott crossing the line, losing journalistic integrity, or something completely different?